PING: Baseball Guys (Re: The DH)

[albionmoonlight]

Discussion starter for this thread:

Does the DH make for good, exciting baseball?

OR

Is the DH symbolic of everything wrong in America today?

Give reasons, insight, discussion, etc.

[SackAttack]

Is the DH symbolic of everything wrong in America today?

Well, it just seems to me they didn't go far enough here.

You're already letting a dude hit for the pitcher who (frequently) has absolutely no redeeming value for the club otherwise. So I propose the following:

Selig & Co. want to speed games up, right? So why not have a designated runner for the catcher? If he gets walked or gets a hit, the runner comes in to run for him so that he can be in the dugout getting his gear back on for the next inning!

That way dudes who can burn but can't rake, hey - they get the same treatment as dudes who can rake but can't run!

[moriarty]

DH stinks. Take a game that prides itself on it's history and then take out a primary piece of strategy.

Yeah, you can say they've made other changes like the wild card and interplay, but neither of these fundamentally alters the strategy of a game revolving around when to let a pitcher bat or pinch hit. Not to mention where do you play that great hitter that can field worth a lick.

It also makes the American League different than every other brand of baseball from little league up, and more importantly changes the rules between two divisions of the same league. That's like letting the American League play with 12 players in football while the National League can only use 11.

[John Galt]

The DH sucks, but I'm not strongly opposed to it. I like that it offers some elder statesmen to do a sort of victory tour with the AL. Unfortunately, that isn't what it is used for these days. I would be happier without it, but it isn't nearly the abomination as interleague play is.

[Captain2711]

I think what makes the DH horrible for baseball is its impact on the strategic part of the game. There are no need for double switches, sacrifices, wheel plays, butcher boy plays, squeezes etc. Plus a manager has real easy time when the DH is in the lineup. Joe Torre was an average manager with the Mets, Braves and Cardinals. With the Yankees he's an all-time great. His greatest asset is obviously his ability to deal with ego's and Big Stein, but his in game managerial skills are average at best. Unfortunately, in game managing is greatly reduced in the AL.

[st.cronin]

As a table-game manager, I always preferred to play with the DH. I felt like it opened up the roster. In the majors, I don't especially mind it. I don't think it's any more outrageous than the fact that Peyton Manning doesn't kick field goals or play strong safety when the other team has the ball.

[Toddzilla]

I think the biggest problem with the DH is the fact that the rule is inconsistent - one league uses it, one league doesn't. And when those leagues get together - especially to decide a championship - one of the teams is always at a disadvantage playing a style of baseball they're not suited for.

I personally dislike the DH, and would like to see it eliminated. But if that cannot be done, I'd much rather see both leagues use it than one with and one without.

[stevew]

I like it cause sometimes it allows a veteran player to have a prolonged victory tour in the AL. It would be better if both leagues would use the same rules, however. I don't really enjoy seeing pitchers attempt a sacrifice bunt, so that 9th hitter is welcome.

And Interleague play is much worse than the DH. To boot, they don't even do that right. It might take 8-10 years to get to see a Pirates/yankees in Pittsburgh. If you're going to do it, at least let us have the chance to see every AL team at home once every 6 years or something.

[Huckleberry]

Dumb rule. Either have offensive/defensive platoons or don't. Just one guy on the defense doesn't have to play offense?

It's an Arena League type rule.

[Icy]

I like it as i enjoy way more watching a power hitter hitting hard than a pitcher struggling trying to make contact. As some said, it's like if you make a QB to kick and punt too or a Center to play as WR. In the other hand, what i don't like and see unfair is that not both leagues use it.

[ISiddiqui]

DH sucks... horribly bad. What is the sense in having of the 9 players who play defense, only having 8 of those players play offense and bring in another guy to replace the 1 who doesn't have to play offense? If your pitcher hits better than your uber-defensive SS, why shouldn't you be able to use your DH for that SS? What about having 2 teams. One defense team and one offense team.

It's just dumb and inconsistent. Every position that plays defense should play on offense.

[ISiddiqui]

I like it as i enjoy way more watching a power hitter hitting hard than a pitcher struggling trying to make contact. As some said, it's like if you make a QB to kick and punt too or a Center to play as WR. In the other hand, what i don't like and see unfair is that not both leagues use it.

No, its more like making every player play both ways, but allowing a designated offense player for the Free Safety and ONLY the Free Safety. Why shouldn't he have to play offense if everyone plays both ways?

[Celeval]

If your pitcher hits better than your uber-defensive SS, why shouldn't you be able to use your DH for that SS?

That actually annoys me - all the amateur leagues (college included) allow the DH to be for any position, not just the pitcher. Not MLB!

[QuikSand]

I say take your 25 guys, put whoever you want at any position, and anyone else you want anywhere in your batting order of 9 guys, and allow free substitution. And beer tents.

[albionmoonlight]

I'll play a little devil's advocate here.

The DH is good because:

1.) It separates the men from the boys in terms of pitchers. NL pitchers get to be "off" for 1 out of every 9 batters. AL pitchers have to be up for all 9 with no break. It does not allow pitchers to take a mental/physical break, and that is a good thing.

2.) Despite what NL fans think, deciding when to pinch hit is not the be-all, end-all of baseball strategy. In fact, eliminating that decision from the calculus allows the managers to focus on the more subtle (but still important) in-game decisions that the average fan may miss.

[Pumpy Tudors]

:mad: It's an Arena League type rule.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[KWhit]

The DH makes no sense. It's totally arbitrary and goes against the idea of having a team of 9 players who hit and play the field.

As others have said, why not just have 2 separate teams an offensive one and a defensive one? A DH for everyone!

[KWhit]

I'll play a little devil's advocate here.

The DH is good because:

2.) Despite what NL fans think, deciding when to pinch hit is not the be-all, end-all of baseball strategy. In fact, eliminating that decision from the calculus allows the managers to focus on the more subtle (but still important) in-game decisions that the average fan may miss.

Disagree. It takes away an important decision point in managing a game. It adds nothing strategically, just removes an element of strategy, IMO.

[Captain2711]

The difference between football and baseball is that since the beginning of the sport of baseball all positions were required to play both offense and defense. Not so (obviously) in football.

[albionmoonlight]

And beer tents.

Well, duh.

[Pumpy Tudors]

oh noes no double switches!!! american league baseball is dead dead dead why even watch it it is terrible they should kick the al out nooooo noooo i need my double switches :( :( :( omg

[KWhit]

Also, in the AL, pitchers can throw at batters with no fear of a reprisal (other than a mound charge). And yes, I know, pitchers don't get brushed back in the NL very often either, but it does happen.

[stevew]

oh noes no double switches!!! american league baseball is dead dead dead why even watch it it is terrible they should kick the al out nooooo noooo i need my double switches :( :( :( omg

Lol

[sovereignstar]

I like the pitchers to focus on pitching. And I don't want Johan Santana running the bases no matter how good of an athlete he is.

[KWhit]

oh noes no double switches!!! american league baseball is dead dead dead why even watch it it is terrible they should kick the al out nooooo noooo i need my double switches :( :( :( omg

It has less to do with double switches than simply the decision on whether to pull your pitcher or not late in the game to pinch hit for him.

Do you remove an effective pitcher to try to score a run? Or do you let him go ahead and hit?

That doesn't exist in the AL.

[Toddzilla]

I'll play a little devil's advocate here.

The DH is good because:

1.) It separates the men from the boys in terms of pitchers. NL pitchers get to be "off" for 1 out of every 9 batters. AL pitchers have to be up for all 9 with no break. It does not allow pitchers to take a mental/physical break, and that is a good thing.Actually, thats a little misguided, as in the NL, it forces the pitcher to go to the plate and face the pitcher for the other team. so in the NL if a pitcher wants to pitch high-and-tight or hit a few guys, he's got to face the music when he comes to bat.

[DanGarion]

I think they should get rid of the DH all together. But then I also think we should get rid of all these specialty pitchers and force teams to only have 8 man staffs.

[Pumpy Tudors]

It has less to do with double switches than simply the decision on whether to pull your pitcher or not late in the game to pinch hit for him.

Do you remove an effective pitcher to try to score a run? Or do you let him go ahead and hit?

That doesn't exist in the AL.
No, it doesn't exist in the AL. Does it need to?

[DanGarion]

No, it doesn't exist in the AL. Does it need to?
Being that baseball is a game of strategy the DH really takes a pinnicale part of strategy out of the game.

[Captain2711]

But I guess it's ok for the DH to take an break between his strenuous 4 AB's a night.

[ISiddiqui]

No, it doesn't exist in the AL. Does it need to?

For good baseball, yes :p.

The DH is the reason I don't really watch the AL (maybe if nothing else is on).

[Pumpy Tudors]

Being that baseball is a game of strategy the DH really takes a pinnicale part of strategy out of the game.
Funny, I thought baseball was a game of one guy pitching a baseball and another guy trying to hit it. Then people run around while some guy chases the ball.

Obviously, I'm being really silly here, but I am amused by the strong dislike of the DH by some people. I mean, if people don't like it, that fine, but it does amuse me.

[DanGarion]

Funny, I thought baseball was a game of one guy pitching a baseball and another guy trying to hit it. Then people run around while some guy chases the ball.

Obviously, I'm being really silly here, but I am amused by the strong dislike of the DH by some people. I mean, if people don't like it, that fine, but it does amuse me.
Then why is one guy not trying to hit and run around the bases and has to have someone else do it for them?

[KWhit]

Funny, I thought baseball was a game of one guy pitching a baseball and another guy trying to hit it. Then people run around while some guy chases the ball.

Obviously, I'm being really silly here, but I am amused by the strong dislike of the DH by some people. I mean, if people don't like it, that fine, but it does amuse me.

The DH was a huge change made to the way the game was played in order to increase scoring. It took a fundamental principal of the game and changed it.

The change happened before my time, but I see the disconnect in the logic of the game with having one position on the team that doesn't have to bat. In my analytical mind, it just doesn't fit.

There's no real analogy I can make to other sports, but it would be like if in the NBA, centers could have someone come into the game to shoot their foul shots. Since centers typically can't shoot as well as other players, nobody wants to see them get up there are struggle, so let's let a freethrow specialist come in and do it for them. It might give us a chance to see Reggie Miller play for a few more years.

[DanGarion]

The DH was a huge change made to the way the game was played in order to increase scoring. It took a fundamental principal of the game and changed it.

The change happened before my time, but I see the disconnect in the logic of the game with having one position on the team that doesn't have to bat. In my analytical mind, it just doesn't fit.

There's no real analogy I can make to other sports, but it would be like if in the NBA, centers could have someone come into the game to shoot their foul shots. Since centers typically can't shoot as well as other players, nobody wants to see them get up there are struggle, so let's let a freethrow specialist come in and do it for them. It might give us a chance to see Reggie Miller play for a few more years.

I think it could be even like in the AFC requiring the QB to do all the kicks, compared to the NFC having specialized kickers.

[st.cronin]

The dh rule is no more strange or bizarre a rule than the 3-point line in Basketball, or the shootout in hockey. People get bent out of shape because it's baseball which supposedly has this fantastic history which needs to be maintained, which of course that history also includes overt racism and cheating. It's fine to not like the dh, but it's silly to invoke baseball's history.

[ISiddiqui]

The dh rule is no more strange or bizarre a rule than the 3-point line in Basketball, or the shootout in hockey. People get bent out of shape because it's baseball which supposedly has this fantastic history which needs to be maintained, which of course that history also includes overt racism and cheating. It's fine to not like the dh, but it's silly to invoke baseball's history.

The shootout in hockey sucks :p. But I have no problems with the 3 point line in basketball, because everyone is subjected to that. It isn't affecting one position over the others. The DH says that one position only has to play defense and will have a replacement for the offensive part of the game when everyone else has to play both offense and defense.

[st.cronin]

The shootout in hockey sucks :p.

I agree.

[Celeval]

There's no real analogy I can make to other sports, but it would be like if in the NBA, centers could have someone come into the game to shoot their foul shots.

There's no comparison to other sports, because other sports are so different to begin with. For one thing, both the NBA and NFL have free substitutions - MLB does not. If you leave the game, you're gone - so the NBA /can/ do offensive/defensive specialists, and you see that near the end of games, especially if you have one offensive and/or defensive liability. the foul-shot example does exist in soccer - is it always the guy who gets fouled in the box who takes the penalty shot?

Maybe an example of an existing rule that is comparable is the protection given to the QB in the NFL. All other positions, the rules apply based on blocking, catching, running, tackling, etc... the activity; but the quarterback seemsto have a different set of protections even when not directly involved in a play (i.e. post-handoff, during interception return).

[QuikSand]

A ball caught after one bound should still count as an out. Good baseball demands it. How can they go and change such a fundamental principle? Curses, how will the sport survive?

[DanGarion]

How about this in hockey. The team selects a "designated shooter" who doesn't play on the ice during the rest of the game and at the end of every period each teams lets their shooter do a shootout. That sounds comprable. And lets make only have the league do it.

Or maybe in football at the end of every quarter the kicker gets to kick a fieldgoal.

These all sound comprable to the DH in baseball. And I mean it increases scoring!

[DanGarion]

A ball caught after one bound should still count as an out. Good baseball demands it. How can they go and change such a fundamental principle? Curses, how will the sport survive?
That sounds like a great rule for football too. Imagine how many more receptions Jerry Rice would have had... :rolleyes:

[KWhit]

There's no comparison to other sports, because other sports are so different to begin with. For one thing, both the NBA and NFL have free substitutions - MLB does not. If you leave the game, you're gone - so the NBA /can/ do offensive/defensive specialists, and you see that near the end of games, especially if you have one offensive and/or defensive liability. the foul-shot example does exist in soccer - is it always the guy who gets fouled in the box who takes the penalty shot?

Maybe an example of an existing rule that is comparable is the protection given to the QB in the NFL. All other positions, the rules apply based on blocking, catching, running, tackling, etc... the activity; but the quarterback seems to have a different set of protections even when not directly involved in a play (i.e. post-handoff, during interception return).

A ball caught after one bound should still count as an out. Good baseball demands it. How can they go and change such a fundamental principle? Curses, how will the sport survive?


Sigh. F*cking heathens.

[McSweeny]

watching a pitcher embarrass himself 3 times a game is great fun to watch isn't it?

[chinaski]

Even as President of the Edgar Martinez fan club, I despise the DH.

[DanGarion]

watching a pitcher embarrass himself 3 times a game is great fun to watch isn't it?
Not all pitchers embarrass themselves. It's part of the game, they should be working on it.

[JS19]

DH sucks but since it's been a rule during my lifetime i'm used to it.

[SelzShoes]

A couple points:

For all those that cry "Tradition, Tradition"--the idea of the DH was floated as early as the 1890's. It was even suggested during the hitter happy year of 1930 and again (I'm pretty sure) in the late 40's. What would your feeling about the DH be if it had been adopted at those points? I am willing to guess you'd think the DH was fine, because that is all you would know.

I think we've gotten too conservative in what our thinking of a DH should be. We think 3-4-5 slugger. By locking our thinking into this stereotypical DH, we ignore possible other options that might actually be better for the offense. My personal favorite sim/replay DH was Miguel Dilone from a 1984 APBA league. I needed more than 1 point of defense, but he was a great lead off guy that year. By DHing him, I had a pretty solid team--if I had tried to DH Joe Lefebvre or somesuch nonsense the team wouldn't have been as good. Hell, in the Independent Frontier League I've seen a team bat the DH 9th! But if that is what's best for the offense, then so be it. After 30 years we haven't begun to think about how the position should best be used.

[miami_fan]

watching a pitcher embarrass himself 3 times a game is great fun to watch isn't it?

This is something I don't get. When I watch college and high school baseball,some of those guys can really hit and most at the very least looked decent swinging the bat. In MLB, the pitchers look like that at bat is the very first time they have ever step into a batter's box.

[mckerney]

2.) Despite what NL fans think, deciding when to pinch hit is not the be-all, end-all of baseball strategy. In fact, eliminating that decision from the calculus allows the managers to focus on the more subtle (but still important) in-game decisions that the average fan may miss.

Agreed. The double switch is overrated as a supposed 'brilliant strategy' in what it adds to the game.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/designated_hitter_quotes.shtml

"Everyone in the world disagrees with me, including some managers, but I think managing in the American League is much more difficult for that very reason (having the designated hitter). In the National League, my situation is dictated for me. If I'm behind in the game, I've got to pinch hit. I've got to take my pitcher out. In the American League, you have to zero in. You have to know exactly when to take them out of there. In the National League, that's done for you." - Jim Leyland

"I'm not an advocate of the Designated Hitter Rule; I'm only an advocate of seeing the truth and telling the truth. What the truth comes down to here is a question of in what does strategy reside? Does strategy exist in the act of bunting? If so the Designated Hitter Rule has reduced strategy. But if strategy exists in the decision about when a bunt should be used, then the DH rule has increased the differences of opinion which exist about that question, and thus increased strategy...[the research shows] that there is more of a difference of opinion, not less, in the American League." - Bill James in The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (1986)

[Young Drachma]

I enjoy the distinct differences -- which of course, are a lot more blurred now -- between the two leagues in baseball. I like the DH and like the fact that the game is different to watch at an AL park than it is at an AL park. If they got rid of the rule -- and its unlikely that they'll ever do that -- I wouldn't cry (the union has been floating the idea of a 27-man roster across the board if they want to rid the AL of the DH...) but I must say that people who want to change baseball drastically seem to either be big-time seamheads or folks who want football to keep jersey numbers rigid because it makes it better for them to watch on TV.

[ISiddiqui]

the union has been floating the idea of a 27-man roster across the board if they want to rid the AL of the DH...

Actually that was Selig who was floating that idea and the MLBPA shot it down.

[BYU 14]

I hate the DH, takes a bit of strategy out of the game IMO, I would be totally for 26 or 27 Man Rosters if it would rid the AL of the DH.

[BYU 14]

This is something I don't get. When I watch college and high school baseball,some of those guys can really hit and most at the very least looked decent swinging the bat. In MLB, the pitchers look like that at bat is the very first time they have ever step into a batter's box.

I think a lot of it is that those players in High School also play other positions when they are not Pitching as many are also among the best overall Athletes on the Team. A lot end up at other spots as Pro's or if they don't pitching just becomes the focus. When you don't get the same number of reps hitting as you move up you can't keep up with the increase in skill of the Guys you are facing. The Braves of the 90's might have had the best overall hitting rotation ever, but they actually worked on it in their free time because it was a competition. It would make sense to do this and be able to help yourself, but I think the prevailing attitude with most Pitchers is "Hey if they pay me 10 Mil to Pitch every 5th day, why waste time trying to keep my Batting stroke sharp?"

[st.cronin]

I hate the DH, takes a vital part of strategy out of the game IMO, I would be totally for 26 or 27 Man Rosters if it would rid the AL of the DH.

A 27 man roster means 10 man bullpens.

[Young Drachma]

Actually that was Selig who was floating that idea and the MLBPA shot it down.

I knew it was something like that.

[Buccaneer]

DH sucks... horribly bad. What is the sense in having of the 9 players who play defense, only having 8 of those players play offense and bring in another guy to replace the 1 who doesn't have to play offense? If your pitcher hits better than your uber-defensive SS, why shouldn't you be able to use your DH for that SS? What about having 2 teams. One defense team and one offense team.

It's just dumb and inconsistent. Every position that plays defense should play on offense.

Yep.

[Buccaneer]

I'm supposed to say why. Surprisingly, it's not about "tradition" or "strategy", it's about a player that has become useless in the field (to injuries, age or whatever) and still gets a good contract. Baseball has always been about offense and defense as a measure of worthiness. To hear that a player will not play in the field but is willing to "go to the AL" and become a DH just cheapens the game and the league. Of course there are those that really can play both sides but just so happens to be slotted as the DH and we can argue the merits of that. Conversely, there are those players that are/were all glove and no hit but that's the beauty of the game - having to figure out whether the advantage of the glove outweighs the outs of the bat.

[Brillig]

1.) It separates the men from the boys in terms of pitchers. NL pitchers get to be "off" for 1 out of every 9 batters. AL pitchers have to be up for all 9 with no break. It does not allow pitchers to take a mental/physical break, and that is a good thing.


You must've missed the Cardinals-Giants game yesterday where the St Louis pitchers went 3 for 4 with a double, triple and homerun. It's a good thing the SF pitchers were able to take a mental/physical break...:p

[ahbrady]

Also, in the AL, pitchers can throw at batters with no fear of a reprisal (other than a mound charge). And yes, I know, pitchers don't get brushed back in the NL very often either, but it does happen.

This is the only thing I dislike about the DH, and that's a minor concern to me. I can see people not liking it, but as long as Ortiz is with the Red Sox, I'm for it.

[BYU 14]

A 27 man roster means 10 man bullpens.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of pitching becoming so specialized that we have a 6th inning guy, 7th inning guy, etc, etc.......guess the lesser of 2 evils to me?

[larrymcg421]

I mentioned this on another forum, but what bugs me is that the rule only favors hitters who can't play in the field, but fielders who can't hit get screwed. One of my favorite Braves players was Rafael Belliard and he would have had a much longer career, and been a 162 game a year starter if there was a DF rule.

Also, it does take away from the strategy, and it's not just double switches. In the NL, a manager has to worry about pinch hitting for his hot pitcher in a late game offensive situation. That's not a problem in the AL.

I remember in the 95 divisional series with the Rockies and Braves. The Rockies had loaded the bases in the last three innings, and used tons of pinch hitters trying to get a run across. In the 9th inning, they were down by one run and had the bases loaded with two outs. With no pinch hitters left, they had to send Lance Painter to the plate and he struck out.

[SelzShoes]

I mentioned this on another forum, but what bugs me is that the rule only favors hitters who can't play in the field, but fielders who can't hit get screwed. One of my favorite Braves players was Rafael Belliard and he would have had a much longer career, and been a 162 game a year starter if there was a DF rule.
You can use the DH for any player--not just the pitcher. Again, managers have become locked into using it just for the pitcher.


Also, it does take away from the strategy, and it's not just double switches. In the NL, a manager has to worry about pinch hitting for his hot pitcher in a late game offensive situation. That's not a problem in the AL.

I remember in the 95 divisional series with the Rockies and Braves. The Rockies had loaded the bases in the last three innings, and used tons of pinch hitters trying to get a run across. In the 9th inning, they were down by one run and had the bases loaded with two outs. With no pinch hitters left, they had to send Lance Painter to the plate and he struck out.
So if I understand you, the DH is bad because in the AL pitching decisions are based soley on how a guy is pitching--isn't that how it should be? What you point to in your example is not a flaw in the roster, but a flaw in roster management. The Rockies put themself in a position (I believe the ROX carried 12 pitchers that series) where they would not have that extra hitter for just such a situation.

[SelzShoes]

I think it should be pointed out too that in history when discussion of the DH has come up, increasing offense was not the primary goal.

I have a interview with then IL president George Sisler Jr talking about how the DH was necessary to SPEED UP THE GAME. And the 1969 season, where the DH was used in some minor leagues on an experimental basis, there was a several minute reduction in game time. The DH did not slow down baseball, as wags are fond to state, but TV (time between innings) and the LaRussiazation of bullpens did that.

As for reducing the effective size of a roster, the DH actually increases the effective size of a roster, since you won't have to burn a PH in the 3rd/4th inning if your starter doesn't have it that day. You can save players for the situation they will best perform in, not as the place in the line up dictates.

[ISiddiqui]

You can use the DH for any player--not just the pitcher. Again, managers have become locked into using it just for the pitcher.

He was talking about using a Designated Fielder. He was opposed to just using it for hitters who can't field, but not fielders who can't hit.

And IIRC, the DH can ONLY replace the pitcher in MLB. At other levels, it can replace any batter.

[KWhit]

I think it should be pointed out too that in history when discussion of the DH has come up, increasing offense was not the primary goal.

I have a interview with then IL president George Sisler Jr talking about how the DH was necessary to SPEED UP THE GAME. And the 1969 season, where the DH was used in some minor leagues on an experimental basis, there was a several minute reduction in game time. The DH did not slow down baseball, as wags are fond to state, but TV (time between innings) and the LaRussiazation of bullpens did that.


In the MLB, the DH was put in to increase offense. End of story.

Peter Angelos, Owner, Baltimore Orioles
The designated hitter provides more offense and a more exciting game overall for the fans. That was the initial reason for authorizing the designated hitter and I think that reason still pertains.

The purists feel that it alters the game from a standpoint of strategy. I think that is true. You do lose something there. But I think in the overall you gain by providing more offensive capability.


Bud Selig
Well, I voted for the designated hitter in 1972 at the Plaza Hotel and it's the only thing in my career I ever agreed on with (former Oakland owner) Charlie Finley. But I did because offense was down and (former American League president) Joe Cronin and everybody thought that we ought to do something to liven up the offense a little bit.

I have a interview with then IL president George Sisler Jr talking about how the DH was necessary to SPEED UP THE GAME. And the 1969 season, where the DH was used in some minor leagues on an experimental basis, there was a several minute reduction in game time. The DH did not slow down baseball, as wags are fond to state, but TV (time between innings) and the LaRussiazation of bullpens did that.

If I recall, AL games are longer time-wise than NL games. Unfortunately, Google isn't helping me find those averages easily, but I'm pretty sure the difference is significant.

[KWhit]

And IIRC, the DH can ONLY replace the pitcher in MLB. At other levels, it can replace any batter.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's correct.

[SelzShoes]

In the MLB, the DH was put in to increase offense. End of story.

Peter Angelos, Owner, Baltimore Orioles
The designated hitter provides more offense and a more exciting game overall for the fans. That was the initial reason for authorizing the designated hitter and I think that reason still pertains.

The purists feel that it alters the game from a standpoint of strategy. I think that is true. You do lose something there. But I think in the overall you gain by providing more offensive capability.
Angleos wasn't an owner when the DH was adopted, so he is just repeating what has become the accepted 'truth'.


Bud Selig
Well, I voted for the designated hitter in 1972 at the Plaza Hotel and it's the only thing in my career I ever agreed on with (former Oakland owner) Charlie Finley. But I did because offense was down and (former American League president) Joe Cronin and everybody thought that we ought to do something to liven up the offense a little bit.
The DH was part of a package of changes proposed in the early 70's to change the face of the game to bring back fans. I myself think Bud is suffering from a little revisionist history; because the rule changes considered at the time that would have really picked up the offense, were voted down. One included changing the shape of the foul lines so there was essentially no foul territory in the outfield. I am not arguing that the DH does not increase offense--I am arguing that historically, increasing offense was never the main arguement for the DH.


If I recall, AL games are longer time-wise than NL games. Unfortunately, Google isn't helping me find those averages easily, but I'm pretty sure the difference is significant.

At the time the DH was considered, it was shown to speed up the games. As the offensive enviroment changed, so did the effect of the DH on time. Again, I am not arguing how things are, but putting forth the arguements used at the time of adoption.

I found another DH proposal from 1928. As in the other situations, the primary reason for adopting was not offense. Time and preventing injuries to pitchers had been the driving forces of the pro-DH arguement for 80 years.

I do conceed that I was wrong about the MLB allowing the DH for any position other than pitcher--but I would argue that the rule would be more effective if you could use it for any player.

[ISiddiqui]

I am arguing that historically, increasing offense was never the main arguement for the DH.

Yet, you've offered no proof for it. An IL President doesn't factor into MLB's decision to make the change.

[SelzShoes]

I apologize for not being able to link to books and papers. ;)

Sisler does state in his interview that the DH was used at the request of MLB (they wanted a high level minor league as a test), and they were most interested in the time of game--not the offensive numbers.

In the 1890s, the proposal was to reduce wear on the pitcher. As you may know, 60'6' was adopted in 1893, and there was worry pitchers would not have the strength to pitch consitantly from that distance. (EDIT-several clubs started the year with 3 catchers, thinking they would have to 'rotate' catchers to save the wear on them as well.)

In 1928, the AL wanted to adopt the DH to speed up the game by reducing the number of pinch hitter. They did not think fans would stand for games creeping past 2 hours. The NL would not go along, so the idea died.

1n 1930, Colonel Ruppert's opposition killed another DH proposal. As the increased offense extend the length of games, the DH was seen as a way to keep pitchers fresh, not wearing them out on the bases and in the box.

The late 1940's proposal, again, focused on time of game and the health of pitchers. Not increasing offense.

EDIT-Personally, I don't like the DH--but that is more a reason of how it is used, rather than the rule itself.